Burris Being Refused to be Seated in the Senate

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I did the following blog post about this today, and I'm too lazy to make the whole argument again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, in my opinion, White really doesn’t have a choice, and Rod Blagojevich didn’t have a choice as to appointing or not appointing somebody.  Here’s an excerpt from the Illinois Compiled Statutes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here’s another excerpt:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Secretary of State legally CANNOT refuse to sign the certificate.

So, Burris left the Senate saying he was “not seeking to have any type of confrontation.”

So, this leaves us in a situation similar to one we’ve seen before: the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.  For those of you who have forgotten the case since high school government class, here are some resources for you to refresh yourself: http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/home.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison.

Let’s take a look at the Marbury v. Madison opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The answer to numbers 1 and 2 (number 3 isn’t relevant here) are similar to the answers from Marbury v. Madison.  Let’s take a look at the opinion again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Similarly, 10 ILCS 5/25‑8 gives Burris this same right.  But there’s a slight variation: the secretary of state never completed that appointment; however, not doing so is an illegal act.

It is my belief that Burris has been denied his right and that the act of co-signing the the certificate is merely a ministerial function required by ILCS.  Therefore, Burris, through the laws of this country is afforded a remedy.

Burris should be seated in the United States Senate, and Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White should be removed from office for violating 15 ILCS 305/5.[/quote]

[opebo]

Yes.  Obviously it is both the legally correct move and the best move politically.  It is too bad that the silly ass Reid and so forth ever made an issue of it - he should have been quietly seated without complaint.

[Bono]

Yes, of course he should. He was lawfully appointed, despite what the Illinois SoS says. I hope the Supreme Court smacks down these bitches with the mighty pimp cane of the constitution.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, of course he should. He was lawfully appointed, despite what the Illinois SoS says. I hope the Supreme Court smacks down these bitches with the mighty pimp cane of the constitution.

Well that's the debate.  Is the SoS co-signature just a ministerial duty required by law, or a fundamental part of the nomination.  I say the former, and I think Marbury v. Madison backs me up here.

[J. J.]

Yes, of course he should. He was lawfully appointed, despite what the Illinois SoS says. I hope the Supreme Court smacks down these bitches with the mighty pimp cane of the constitution.

Well that's the debate.  Is the SoS co-signature just a ministerial duty required by law, or a fundamental part of the nomination.  I say the former, and I think Marbury v. Madison backs me up here.

I think White would agree with you.  I support the rule law; seat Burris.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, of course he should. He was lawfully appointed, despite what the Illinois SoS says. I hope the Supreme Court smacks down these bitches with the mighty pimp cane of the constitution.

Well that's the debate.  Is the SoS co-signature just a ministerial duty required by law, or a fundamental part of the nomination.  I say the former, and I think Marbury v. Madison backs me up here.

I think White would agree with you.  I support the rule law; seat Burris.

But White also has a legal obligation to perform that ministerial duty.

[Purple State]

Should he be seated? Well he is qualified to be Senator, but I don't think anyone Blagojevich appoints should be. Will he be seated? Certainly.

[Jacobtm]

If the Senate is given the power to reject a duly chosen member on the basis of "suspicion of taint", they can reject just about anyone they want.

[SPC]

Of course he should be seated.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If the Senate is given the power to reject a duly chosen member on the basis of "suspicion of taint", they can reject just about anyone they want.

Where are they given that power?  I thought Article I, Section 5 was the only place they referenced Congress refusal/expulsion of members.  Or is "suspicion of taint" in the Senate rules somewhere?

[Purple State]

We have to stop using the word taint. Please!

And there is no procedural rule saying they can block incoming senators. Rather, they are using technicalities to block him.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We have to stop using the word taint. Please!

And there is no procedural rule saying they can block incoming senators. Rather, they are using technicalities to block him.

The technicality of the whole SoS signature being missing is invalid, at least the way I interpret Marbury v. Madison.

[jamestroll]

We have to stop using the word taint. Please!

And there is no procedural rule saying they can block incoming senators. Rather, they are using technicalities to block him.

The technicality of the whole SoS signature being missing is invalid, at least the way I interpret Marbury v. Madison.

screw the SCOTUS and US Constitution.

[Purple State]

We have to stop using the word taint. Please!

And there is no procedural rule saying they can block incoming senators. Rather, they are using technicalities to block him.

The technicality of the whole SoS signature being missing is invalid, at least the way I interpret Marbury v. Madison.

Probably. It's more of a tradition thing, but really it is bullsh**t to just not seat him. Obviously it is meaningless, but they will use it until the are forced otherwise.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We have to stop using the word taint. Please!

And there is no procedural rule saying they can block incoming senators. Rather, they are using technicalities to block him.

The technicality of the whole SoS signature being missing is invalid, at least the way I interpret Marbury v. Madison.

screw the SCOTUS and US Constitution.

So, Burris shouldn't be seated?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes, he should be seated.

[muon2]

Don't forget that the IL Supremes are elected and understand politics. Their ruling today was in that way perfect. It sided with SoS White that he had no obligation to sign under IL law since this appointment was not a commission requiring such under state statute, and the SoS duly recorded the appointment as valid. It also aided Burris by validating the appointment and indicating that relief was available to Burris by merely asking the SoS for verification of the recorded appointment. The ball went right back to Sen. Reid who is of little political interest to the IL Supremes.

[minionofmidas]

If the Senate is given the power to reject a duly chosen member on the basis of "suspicion of taint", they can reject just about anyone they want.

They'd be more or less required to!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Republican hacks have basically forced him to be seated, since they argue that Franken shouldn't be seated if Burris isn't seated. Oh, well, what Blagovich did was wrong, but not really any more than what other politicians have done. The Illinois Republican party has Speaker Hastert and Governor Ryan, so I don't think they should throw stones in their glass house.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Republican hacks have basically forced him to be seated, since they argue that Franken shouldn't be seated if Burris isn't seated. Oh, well, what Blagovich did was wrong, but not really any more than what other politicians have done. The Illinois Republican party has Speaker Hastert and Governor Ryan, so I don't think they should throw stones in their glass house.

Didn't Franken narrowly lose the recount?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Republican hacks have basically forced him to be seated, since they argue that Franken shouldn't be seated if Burris isn't seated. Oh, well, what Blagovich did was wrong, but not really any more than what other politicians have done. The Illinois Republican party has Speaker Hastert and Governor Ryan, so I don't think they should throw stones in their glass house.

Didn't Franken narrowly lose the recount?

Franken won by 225 votes.

[muon2]

The Republican hacks have basically forced him to be seated, since they argue that Franken shouldn't be seated if Burris isn't seated.

The Congressional Black Caucus applied much more pressure than the GOP. Most GOP'ers here do not approve of Burris' appointment - it was made under a cloud. However, IL law says otherwise, and it's been affirmed by the state Supreme Court. If Franken meets MN law for election certification he should be seated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Blagojevich did went way beyond the misdeeds and malfeasance of any other IL politician in the last 30 years. There's a reason that he was impeached.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Republican hacks have basically forced him to be seated, since they argue that Franken shouldn't be seated if Burris isn't seated. Oh, well, what Blagovich did was wrong, but not really any more than what other politicians have done. The Illinois Republican party has Speaker Hastert and Governor Ryan, so I don't think they should throw stones in their glass house.

Didn't Franken narrowly lose the recount?

Franken won by 225 votes.

Yeah, I know.  I went back and looked it up and found that they had officially announced it when I was in Wisconsin I think.  I must not have saved my post when I edited it.